Twenty new IIITs?

Here is a news report about the inflation in the number of IIITs in India:

An Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) in each state is the ministry of human resource development’s latest ambitious plan to improve the quality and quantity of technical manpower in the country. The proposed 20 institutes will open their doors from July next year, as per the ministry’s plan.

The ministry’s detailed project report will require funding of Rs 3,700 crore over a period of six years. The plan, submitted to the Planning Commission, says Rs 2,500 crore will be by way of plan expenditure. The government’s plan has also been endorsed by NASSCOM.

While I have nothing against the IIITs, I have to admit that I am outraged by this loony idea. Creation of specialized centres that are marked out for pampering by the federal government has been the bane of the higher ed system in India. There once were CSIR labs; then came the IITs; current fashion seems to be IISERs and IIITs.

At the state level, too, there has been a shady kind of consolidation that favours formation of universities that cater to focused areas such as technology, medicine, etc.

These trends are bad, since (a) they kill the benefits that would flow from a diversity of approaches to education (in engineering, medicine, etc) and (b) they build a wall around disciplines, and make it difficult -- if not impossible -- for cross-disciplinary research, which is really where a lot of really exciting ideas bubble up.

The alternative to specialized centres is most certainly not creating more of our hub-and-spoke universities. This model has its own problems, the most important of which is that UG students are taught in the affiliated colleges ('spokes') with no real input from practising researchers who are concentrated in the 'hubs'.

What we lack is a modern research university -- like Stanford (in the private sector) or the University of Illinois (in the State sector) in the US -- that does both cutting edge research and undergraduate teaching. The Banaras Hindu University is the only place that I can think of which comes close to this ideal. Instead of creating such multi-disciplinary 'real' universities, we are repeating the mistakes of the past by creating specialized centres of higher education such as IISERs and IIITs.

A broader question is: what is so special about IT? Or, for that matter, science, engineering, or medicine? Sure, our country needs good, well-trained engineers, doctors and scientists. But, don't we also need good, well-trained sociologists, economists, historians, linguists and anthropologists? Aren't we better off getting our future leaders in all these fields trained by leading researchers in a real university?

One minute happiness test

It's quick, it's fun. Take it now! Over at the BBC site.

Is affirmative action 'voluntary' in the US?

In a previous post three days ago, I said I was working on saying something coherent about whether an Amendment to our Constitution was really needed to introduce and implement a program of quotas (or, more broadly, affirmative action). Well, I am still working on it; but, in the meantime, this Frontline article by Meera Nanda on affirmative action (AA) in the US has quite a few elements of what I want to say. Go read it.

Enthusiasts of AA lose no opportunity to point out that "AA is 'totally voluntary'." Such an assertion would imply that (a) businesses and universities are implementing AA on their own volition, and (b) they actually have a choice to not implement AA.

While (a) may be a reality now, it certainly was not so when AA was being mooted, debated and introduced through various Executive Orders of the US government [In fact, if 'voluntary' AA was the norm in the 1960s, where was the need to mandate it?]. However, the second possibility (that institutions can opt out of AA) exists only as a theoretical curiosity; the practical consequences of this option are grave indeed. The middle portion of Meera Nanda's article elaborates on these themes, so let me give here an extended quote:

... Even though it has won the enthusiastic compliance of big business, AA in the U.S. has never been voluntary. And even though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Executive Order 11246 that created AA in September 1965 did not lay out numerical targets, enforcement agencies and corporations themselves routinely use numerical targets - yes, quotas - to judge if they are complying with the law. [...]

[...] Enforcement of the provision of the Civil Rights Act and AA was never left to the good intentions and kindness of the private sector. Right from the start, both these laws were backed by the full might of the federal government. Any business, contractor or university that wanted to do business with the government, or get any subsidies, grants or tax-breaks, had to completely de-segregate their workplaces (as required by the Civil Rights Act) and had to take concrete, verifiable steps to recruit black talent aggressively for all levels of the hierarchy (as demanded by AA). A business could not meet its AA obligations by hiring more minority community members as janitors and unskilled labourers, for example. It had to make demonstrable, verifiable steps to find, train and hire suitable black candidates at all levels, including the management. Of course, businesses had a "choice" not to do this, but then the government, too, could "choose" not to do any business with them. With millions of dollars involved in government contracts and grants, there was not much of a free choice in the matter of complying with the law. The apparent "voluntariness" of the system has always been backed by the enormous power of the state treasury.

The issue of quotas in the U.S. system is also much more complicated than the spokesmen of the Indian private sector make it appear. It is true that Chapter VII of the Civil Rights Act expressly prohibits preferential treatment for any group or individual, black or white. [...] But it soon became apparent that just getting rid of overt discrimination would not be enough to get blacks their fair share in the economy or put an end to the second-class treatment they received in civil society. [...] This became the basis for his Executive Order that laid the foundations of AA. On the surface, AA also did not impose numerical quotas. All it demanded was that those companies supplying goods and services to the government had to show that they were making extra efforts to locate black talent and to give it a chance to develop.

But AA's emphasis on actual results was very quickly interpreted by the government enforcement agency (EEOC, or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), and businesses and universities as an imperative to hire by numbers. Any business whose workforce was not in proportion to the racial make-up of society faced the risk of lawsuits that the EEOC and the Labour Department has the authority to initiate. So, even without expressly demanding quotas, racial quotas have always been a part of the AA enforcement mechanism. The use of quotas is well known and has been challenged in the courts many times. Each time, the American courts have thrown out explicit quotas, but each time they have come back through the back door as the objective standards for enforcement.

From what I have learnt so far on AA, I believe Nanda has it pretty much right on the issue of how 'voluntary' the embrace of AA was by the US businesses and universities. In 2006, every American entity appears to be an 'equal opportunity' employer. But, the initial resistance to becoming one was real as the descrimination that African Americans faced until they won these important victories on the legislative and executive fronts (without the US having to tinker with the American Constitution itself).

* * *

Thanks to reader Pradeepkumar for the e-mail alert about Meera Nanda's article.

Quote

There is nothing unequal as the equal treatment of unequals.

-- Aristotle.

A slightly different one, attributed to Thomas Jefferson, is as follows:

There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.

Update [27 June 2006]:In the comment section, Pitzhov alerts us that Jefferson is not the author of the above quote, and cites the Jefferson Library as the authoritative reference.

Prashant Bhushan, Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Jaivir Singh on the constitutional tenability of the 93rd amendment

They gave their opinion as a part of the Perspectives section of the Economic Times.

Several weeks ago, Satya pointed to a Telegraph   op-ed by Sudhir Krishnaswamy about the same topic.

First, we have Prashant Bhushan, a Supreme Court lawyer:

a Constitution which from its inception had provisions for special treatment of backward sections, both in the chapter on fundamental rights and in the Directive Principles, can hardly be said to have basic features which prohibit the State from reserving seats in private institutions.

Here is Pratap Bhanu Mehta, who has been making news (in addition to commenting on it) lately:

[The 93rd Amendment] can be held to violate [the Constitution] on two grounds: first, if we think it somehow violating property rights and that the private-public distinction is somehow part of the basic structure. I doubt any court in India would be radical enough to make this distinction part of the basic structure.

But it is shocking that the State first does not fulfil its responsibilities in the sphere of education; then comes down hard on the private sector when it picks up the slack. The second ground could be equality: does the reinstatement of the distinction between minority and non-minority unaided, repeat, unaided institutions violate equality? I happen to think it does, but then our courts have often tried to square circles.

Finally, we have Jaivir Singh, a professor in JNU's Centre for Law and Governance:

Changing the Constitution whenever majoritarian political agendas are to be pushed through will create an impotent constitution. In the current context, the state should think of putting into effect an affirmative action policy that does not upset the carefully ordered constitutional balance.

I am evidently not an expert to offer any deep, thoughtful comments on this piece. But, such considerations should not come in the way of blogospheric attempts at collective enlightenment! Wisdom of crowds, and all that. So, here we go...

Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a bunch of law blogs -- blawgs@ -- by Indian legal luminaries of all political persuations? In the US, for example, blawgs are being praised for "some of the freshest and insightful writing" [via Political Theory Daily Review (June 5)].

To me, Jaivir Singh seems to make some very valid points. Considering that reservation (or, more broadly, a program of affirmative action) could have been pushed through without resorting to an Amendment to the Constitution, it appears to me that this was an entirely undesirable thing. Also, as Singh points out, this Amendment's liberty-limiting side effects could come back to bite us in unpredictable ways later (he gives the example of Narmada oustees to illustrate his point).

On the other hand, the 93rd Amendment was meant for a different purpose: reservation or affirmative action in private, unaided institutions (and perhaps later, in private industry as well). Could this objective have been achieved without resorting to amending the Constitution? I believe the answer to be a qualified 'yes', and this is based on what I have learnt from my (admittedly limited) reading of the early history of affirmative action (and of the Civil Rights movement and anti-discrimination laws) in the US. I am still working on saying something coherent on this topic, so that post will have to wait for a while.

In the meantime, if any of you can point me to online resources on the history (particularly early history) of affirmative action in the US and positive discrimination in the UK, please leave them in the comments. I realize that there are many on racial integration in schools and jobs, but I am keen on stuff on affirmative action in colleges. Many thanks in advance.

Reservation: The curious case of Tamil Nadu

I have already said a lot about the aggressive program of reservation in the state of Tamil Nadu, in this blog as well as over at How the Other Half Lives. I just offer a few links to informative articles/posts:

First up, we have this recent piece in Rediff by Shobha Warrier [Thanks to Shiva Pennathur for the alert].

Next, we have Aswin with a nice explanation of how Tamil Nadu has managed to implement its aggressive quota regime that sets aside 69 percent of its seats for SC/ST/MBC/BC students, and still not fall afoul of the Supreme Court ruling that limits quotas to less than 50 percent. While there at Aswin's blog, do take a look at this post where he asks some uncomfortable questions. He is right to demand detailed data (caste-wise as well as class-wise break-up) on who exactly benefits from quotas.

'Fuck'

That's the title of this academic paper exploring "the legal implications of the word fuck". Here is the abstract:

This Article is as simple and provocative as its title suggests: it explores the legal implications of the word fuck. The intersection of the word fuck and the law is examined in four major areas: First Amendment, broadcast regulation, sexual harassment, and education. The legal implications from the use of fuck vary greatly with the context. To fully understand the legal power of fuck, the nonlegal sources of its power are tapped. Drawing upon the research of etymologists, linguists, lexicographers, psychoanalysts, and other social scientists, the visceral reaction to fuck can be explained by cultural taboo. Fuck is a taboo word. The taboo is so strong that it compels many to engage in self-censorship. This process of silence then enables small segments of the population to manipulate our rights under the guise of reflecting a greater community. Taboo is then institutionalized through law, yet at the same time is in tension with other identifiable legal rights. Understanding this relationship between law and taboo ultimately yields fuck jurisprudence.

* * *

Thanks to Selva for the pointer.

* * *

While we are on this topic, I just want to point to a couple of other interesting academic papers. The first one, in linguistics, is titled Dude. The second one, by a philosopher, is titled On Bullshit.

More politicking from the NKC quarters ...

When the National Knowledge Commission, NKC, took (or, was forced by Pratap Bhanu Mehta to take) a stand on the reservation issue, I felt that it was undermining its credibility by wading unnecessarily into questions whose answers lie in politics: integration of lower castes into the mainstream through preferential treatment in education and employment. Ideally, NKC should have concerned itself with questions about the institutions that are necessary to transform our nation into a Knowledge Society -- whatever that means ;-). It simply should have avoided (at least for the moment) questions about who gets to participate in these institutions.

Since it took it upon itself to plough this murky territory it is reaping the results it richly deserves: a public spat that eventually led to the resignations of Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Andre Beteille. Now, we have one more data point in this sordid saga. Another Commissioner, P.M. Bhargava, goes public with his views in a long essay in Outlook. Here's an extract in which he chides NKC:

In view of the relatively little progress towards meeting its mandate and the lack of an agreed procedure for arriving at its destination, the NKC needed to be circumspect about going to the press on any issue not discussed adequately within, as was the case with the proposed reservations for the OBCs. The reservation issue is a part of the larger problem of access to education to all sections of society and at all levels of education, and it would be outside the intellectual mandate of the NKC to comment on it publicly on a stand-alone basis.

Bhargava's essay is of variable quality; while he makes some telling points, it's difficult to endorse his essay when one finds this gem in his discussion of what NKC should be doing in various areas. Look at what he says in the area of civil society:

Civil Society: We have an abundance of never-ending soaps on television that revolve around the question, who is who's child, an issue which could be settled in one episode by DNA fingerprinting. How do we give housewives better options so that they may spend their afternoons fruitfully?

Now, is this the most pressing problem facing the Civil Society that's waiting to be transported to the Knowledge Era?

Retrieving its credibility should be the first priority of NKC ...

* * *

Thanks to Abhinav for the e-mail pointer to Bhargava's essay.

CNN-IBN introspects ...

But the worst scenario emerges in the case of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).

Despite constituting around 24 per cent of the total population, their representation in key decision making across the news spectrum amounts to zilch.

That means there is not a single SC or ST person taking a call on editorial policies in country's news arena.

Do read this CNN-IBN report about the results of a survey of the "newsrooms of top newspapers and television news networks by Centre for Study of Developing Societies (CSDS)."

* * *

Thanks to Krish for the pointer.

Yogendra Yadav's FAQ on reservation

Let us get back. That the OBCs are disadvantaged does not mean that they should get reservations. Does it?

You are right. This only means that something needs to be done. Whether that something should be reservations is not self-evident. We need to ask two basic questions here: what kind of instrument of affirmative action is most suited in this situation? And what should be the criterion for identifying the beneficiaries?

Yes, that is the whole point. Why should caste be used as the only criterion of ‘backwardness’?

Caste is a very useful criterion for several reasons. One, the original discrimination in access to education took place on the basis of caste; the same criterion needs to used for reversing that discrimination. Two, caste is still a very good proxy for various kinds of social and educational disadvantages and the single best predictor of educational opportunities. Three, caste and economic hierarchy tend to fuse at the upper and the lower end: the poor are likely to be ‘lower’ caste and the upper caste likely to be well-to-do. And finally, caste certificates tend to be more reliable than other proofs of disadvantage, especially the notoriously unreliable certificates of income.

Yet all these are not good reasons to treat caste as the only criterion. Sociological evidence shows that we have multi-dimensional inequalities that cannot be reduced to a single factor. Any good scheme to create level playing field in higher education must take into count gender, regional backwardness, urban-rural divide and economic resources, besides caste.

Just two of the questions posed and answered by Yogendra Yadav. Excellent stuff; go grab it now!

* * *

Thanks to Aswin for the pointer. Aswin has been following up on the reservation issue with a bunch of thoughtful posts. From this post, for example, we get the link to a paper analyzing the history and effects of reservation for Dalits [pdf].

Senior citizens as tutors

61-year-old Devinder Kamath and his 60-year-old wife Shobhana who teach about 25 school students between them. There is no time to play grandparents. “Parents are only interested in marks. The children are under too much pressure for me to concentrate on anything else but their studies,” says 61-year-old Devinder Kamath.

"Though if there was time, I would have loved to tell them anecdotes and find out about their day in school,” he adds, wistfully.

From this story in the Economic Times about senior citizens in the tutoring business. The story is quite informative; it's an easy read for the most part, in spite of the rather rude appearance of some primal fears:

Parents are quickly latching on to the option of hiring senior tutors because of one primary reason — they are a safer option to young male tutors, at least in Delhi. In a city where young women working as home tutors is unheard of, there is an element of concern involved in men coming home to teach.

Boy, that was fast!

Check this out:

... [Apple is] pulling out its software development and support operations in India.

The company had commenced operations in April [to be precise, April 17, 2006] and hired about 30 people for its subsidiary, Apple Services India Pvt Ltd.

Reason?

When contacted, Steve Dowling, an Apple spokesperson, said, "We have re-evaluated our plans and have decided to put our planned support centre growth in other countries."

However, Apple's sales and marketing operations will continue.

This story has also been slashdotted.

I am just grateful we have blogs ...

Real life arguments could be lethal:

It's a dilemma that anybody could face. An argument breaks out, do you step in or look the other way?

Student Tom Grant is believed to have intervened in a row, and died from a single stab wound to the heart. Such incidents make others wonder if they would do the same.

Do read the article; it goes on to discuss the bystander effect and the mimic instinct.

"Handwriting University India" figures in the UGC list of fake universities

National University of Electro Complex Homeopathy, Kanpur

United Nations University, Delhi

Vocational University, Delhi

Raja Arabic University, Nagpur

The Institute of Para Medical Sciences, Meerut (UP)

These are just a few of the 22 universities in the UGC's list of fake universities in India. [Update: Mumbai Mirror's website sucks. Here is the alert at the UGC website.]

In the list, the award for academic depth goes to Handwriting University India, Basavangudi, Bangalore. Check out its website!

The award for transparency should go to Commercial University Ltd, Daryaganj, Delhi.

Anuradha Mohit on the rights of persons with disability

The Act provides for three per cent reservation in government aided and run educational institutions. Is this being implemented?

There was a debate on whether the provision for three per cent reservation in the Persons with Disabilities Act extended to seats in government-run and aided educational institutions. The courts have clarified that it does. The academic sector has been the most insensitive in [the] requirement for affirmative action for the disabled. It was very difficult to convince the IITs that reserving three per cent of their seats for the disabled would not compromise on excellence. When the National Law School in Bangalore rejected a low-vision candidate, the student concerned took the matter to the Karnataka High Court, which gave a favourable verdict. Even in the Kendriya Vidyalaya schools it was difficult to get this implemented.

From this interview of Anuradha Mohit, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Special Rapporteur on Disability, by the Hindu's Siddharth Narrain.

A little later in the same interview:

What is the preferred terminology to refer to disabled persons?

By and large people prefer to use the term "persons with disability" when it comes to law and policy. Half of our energy is spent on coining the right terminology, which I think is a futile exercise. If you ask disabled people like me, we are very happy being called disabled people. From a political perspective I prefer the term "disabled people" — the underlying assumption is that we have the ability, but this has been disabled due to external circumstances.